Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Something On Nothing


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 275 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 1:38:06 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:18:58 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 1:43:33 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JV babbled nothing.

Oh well. I accept your concession that you CANNOT support your claims with any actual evidence.

As such, your claims are dismissed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:00:58 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:19:09 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 2:04:57 PM PDT
"All concrete things appear to be contingent beings. For instance, the Earth would not have existed had the matter which now constitutes our solar system formed, as usual, two stars instead of one. If no concrete thing is a necessary being, then none of them can explain the existence of concrete things....Consider all the contingent truths. The conjunction of all these truths is itself a contingent truth. On the one hand, this conjunction cannot be explained by any contingent truth because the conjunction already contains all contingent truths; the explanation would be circular. On the other hand, this conjunction cannot be explained by a necessary truth because a necessary truth can only imply other necessary truths. This dilemma suggests that `Why are there any contingent beings?' is impossible to answer."

- Roy Sorensen

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:15:23 PM PDT
not only is there nothing there are nothings that are more nothing
just like infinity and infinities that are even more infinite (transfinite)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:34:55 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:19:29 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:38:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:19:38 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:40:50 PM PDT
Jack Vix,

Just to point out, if we were trying to be consistent with Nietzsche, is that the atoms would be metaphors for things which correspond in no way to the original entities, if they are original entities at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:52:12 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:19:43 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 2:55:33 PM PDT
Jack Vix,

That is what Nietzsche did. He come up with a theory of fictions, or a partial theory of fictions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 3:02:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:19:49 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 4:10:59 PM PDT
Tammy says:
"Well there's no good answers
No new questions
Another personal disaster
Nowhere to go but down..."

Don't shoot the messenger. Just a song I was listening to a minute ago. Seemed to fit in here.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 4:14:00 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
How can we talk about 'nothing' since no one seems to be able to offer an _example_ of 'nothing'?

How do we 'discuss' non-existence, exactly?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 4:31:14 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:20:00 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 4:34:30 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JV:'I never claimed to.'

That's a steaming load, as you WERE making claims. Just wholly unsubstantiated ones, which is what you were called out for.

So now, you wish to lie, and deny that you made any claims. Thanks for the added evidence that religion = BAD morals.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 4:56:44 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:20:26 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:30:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 5:31:08 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Jack Vix wrote: "There's plenty examples of nothing. Blackholes, death, etc"

AxeGrrl: But those aren't 'nothing'. The former is an astronomical phenomenon, some _thing_ that has properties. And the latter a biological process. Both have details that can be discussed.

Jack Vix wrote: " You would discuss nothing like you would discuss everything. I don't see a problem."

AxeGrrl: Really? what is there to 'discuss' about 'nothing'? what more can be said about non-existence than the fact it doesn't exist?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:57:12 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:20:36 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 6:04:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 6:06:20 PM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Jack Vix wrote: "If non-existence isn't real then where were you before you were born?"
~~~~

Who said non-existence "isn't real"?

What is there to discuss _about_ the 'where' (or whatever word you want to use) people were before they were born? what _details_ can we discuss about that, exactly?

Black holes have _effects_ on things. That's something that can be discussed. But pure non-existence? what are the 'details' that you can discuss about pure non-existence?

I think this comes down to what definition someone uses for "nothing". If the 'thing' being discussed has properties of any kind, or affects other things, that's NOT 'nothing, imo.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 6:09:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 6:10:57 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JV: Basically, you're peeved that I dared point out that your claims were 100% evidence free.

Want some cheese with your whine ?

Here's a hint, moron; When you post IN PUBLIC, you may get replies from people who DON'T agree with you. Duh !

Posted on Jun 21, 2012 6:46:00 PM PDT
So, there is ONLY something... "nothing" is a concept for the absence of a "something." There is not an actual "nothing."

Nothing is not an opposite... it is an absence. You either have "something" or you don't. You can't "have" nothing... It's a placeholder, not a thing.

Space, of course, is something. It is not infinite because infinity is a concept, too. There are no actual infinities that exist... because to be without end would be an absurdity and not a thing. Space is totally filled with quantum fluctuations... particles and anti-particles colliding and leaving small plus or minus deficits...

"Beyond" the universe is not a possible concept. It's incorrect to say "there is nothing beyond our universe" because there is ONLY our universe.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 7:44:12 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:20:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 7:57:23 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:21:25 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 8:06:03 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:21:54 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 8:07:59 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JV: Any sane person would be 'bothered' by the promotion of factless nonsense. That you don't grasp this basic point, shows how much you are a promoter of factless nonsense. And, if you choose to post your factless nonsense in PUBLIC than expect to get replies from people Who Don'T Agree With You.

YOUR Choice, YOUR Consequence, sparky. Put down your whine bottle.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xd98ad798)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  275
Initial post:  Jun 20, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions